IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) A Partner cannot file suit with regard to business transaction, except to seek rendering of accounts and dissolution of Partnership.
(2) Pleadings – When evidence is not in line with pleadings and is at variance with it, it cannot be looked into.

JUDGMENT

These regular appeals under Section 96 Code of Civil Procedure are directed against the decrees and common judgment in O.S.Nos.14 of 2005 and 27 of 2003 dated 04.04.2006 on the file of the Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

2. The appellant herein, before the trial Court, is the plaintiff and he filed both the appeals. The respondent herein is the defendant in both the suits. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they arrayed before the trial Court.

3. The plaintiff instituted the suits against defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs.8,59,333/- and Rs.10,11,656/- with interest and costs basing on the promissory notes dated 01.01.2001 and 01.12.2000 respectively said to be executed by the defendant.

4. Before adverting to the material and evidence on record and nature of findings in the judgment of the trial Court, it is necessary to scan through the case pleaded by the parties in their respective pleadings.

5. The case of the plaintiff/plaintiff in brief in the plaint in both the suits was as follows:

(i) On 01.12.2000, defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, which is the subject matter in O.S.No.27 of 2003.

(ii) On 01.01.2001, defendant again borrowed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- from the plaintiff by executing a promissory note and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 24% per annum, which is the subject manner in O.S.No.14 of 2005.

(iii) In spite of repeated demands and legal notices, the defendant failed to repay the said amounts. Hence, the suits.

6. The respondent/defendant denying the allegations in the plaint and contending in the written statement in both the suits as follows:

(i) The plaintiff is the husband of his elder sister. During the year 1992, plaintiff migrated to Kurnool and stayed along with the defendant and both of them started a bread factory under the name and style of “S.V.Foods”. The said business stands in the name of defendant, actually, it was a partnership business and they carried the said business.

(ii) Since both of them are family members, they were using the partnership amounts to meet their respective personal expenditure besides the family expenditure.

(iii) During the month of December 2000, plaintiff developed some selfish interest and requested the defendant to give in writing about the share in S.V.Foods.

(iv) As M/s. S.V. Foods obtained a loan from A.P. State Finance Corporation, the rights in the partnership could not be transferred. But the defendant accepted to commit himself to recognize the rights of the plaintiff in the said business by executing a promissory note for Rs.6,00,000/- on 01.12.2000.

(v) In spite of execution of promissory note conferring some right against the defendant, the plaintiff did not satisfy with the amount mentioned in the said promissory note and applied pressure on the defendant through his sister, who is wife of plaintiff. On that, he executed another promissory note dated 01.01.2001 for Rs.5,00,000/-. Both the promissory notes are executed in lieu of acknowledgment of the right of the plaintiff in the business only. The attestors found in the suit promissory notes signed it subsequently, just before filing the suit.

(vi) In spite of execution of said promissory notes, the plaintiff did not satisfy and made pressure on the defendant to create right in the factory. Unable to bear the pressure, defendant executed a registered sale deed, dated 12.06.2001 transferring approximately 40% of the area in the name of the plaintiff showing boundaries of the factory in the sale deed.

(vii) Then, the defendant requested the plaintiff to return the promissory notes, but he informed him that the same were misplaced and promised to return them as and when they are traced. Unfortunately, the wife of the plaintiff died suddenly due to blood cancer on 05.01.2003.

(viii) After death